Counter revolution that it was in Nepal: Ex-Army Chief Katawal

Telegraph Nepal

The former Chief of the Nepal Army Staff, Rukmangad Katwal, has begun talking like a political leader.

Highly ambitious and equally controversial, former CoAS Katwal spoke his inner mind wherein he took to task all those who had associated themselves in the last popular movement, 2005-6.

Katwal is an intimate friend of the former Indian Army Chief, Deepak Kapoor.

Says Katwal, the movement of 2005-6 was not at all a revolution as is being given to understand instead it was “a counter revolution”.

A new dimension has been coined to the NOIDA sponsored drama staged in 2005 by Nepal’s seven party alliances which was in effect presumably to do away with the Nepali monarchy and nothing more than that, claim informed analysts.

Continues Katwal by stating that “can the revolution be taken as a real revolution worth the name which fails miserably to transform the nation on economic and social terms”?

Interestingly, Katwal questions that for whom the revolution? Those who were in the power corridors of Nepal themselves talk of waging yet another revolution. What do all these mean?

Understandably, Katawal was referring to the Maoists party-a section of which prefers to go once again for a grand revolution. Say, for example, the hardliner panel of Mohan Baidya.

Katwal’s distaste against the Maoists remains now no longer a secret.

He further alleged that the Maoists had been misusing the national exchequer in the name of awarding financial assistance to the ones who had become the victim of conflict during the people’s war.

He clarifies thus: How can the conflicting parties, the State and the People’s Army, be taken as the victims of conflict?

Weren’t they the warring sides from their respective quarters?

Maoists cadres can in no way be taken as conflict victim, Katwal opined.

Talking of the present day political parties, Katwal says that the “people who had come to the streets to sideline the Nepali monarchy in the past may once again come to stage a fresh revolution against the parties who have failed to deliver”.

Smells of his love and honour for the sidelined monarchy.

In his concluding remarks, Katwal kept on criticising the Nepal Maoists.

Katwal made these obserevations in Bhairahawa yesterday, January 22, 2012 while talking to local media men there.

Post your Comment here

TERMS OF USE:The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any persons) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

Comments

Posted on - 2012-01-23 by david in london
Gen Katwal seems to have gained hind singht wisdom aplenty, these days, based on his comments here. Let's assume it was a 'counter revolution', if so why did he give in to the India designed 12 Point Comprehensive Peace Agreement whose sole purpose was to remove monarchy? Is he not an accomplice by default to this counter revolution?

Posted on - 2012-01-23 by ANsharma
Every Citizen has a right to put his thoughts about any matter.It does not make him ambitious nor controversial.He has equal right to say what he feels as any of us.If talking politics makes us a "political leader" there are so many journalists, NGO's and even diplomats talking about politics are they all 'Political Leaders'. We need to 'grow up' and change our perception about these matters.

Posted on - 2012-01-23 by Devendra Lekhak
I absolutely agree with ANSharma. Everybody has a right to say his/her mind as long as he/she is not hurting the country and its democratization process (at least that is what the people have wanted). Telegraphnepal sometimes makes funny remarks and looks more like Jan Aastha. What is Katwal supposed to do? Act like the Army Chief even now? No, he is a civilian, and he has every right to say his mind, whether that makes him a political leader as this column has said or that makes him a a vigilant citizen.Yes, what Sharma says, I reiterate. Most political leaders and journalists in Nepal need to grow up and be more analytical. So what if Katwal is ambitious? Let him be. Doesn't he have the right to be ambitious? David's remark is also not very well organized. Katwal has nothing to do with the partys' signing of the 12 point-agreement. He helped democratize Nepal. It must have hurt him to have withdrawn support to the monarchy when it needed the military the most, certainly! What was he supposed to do? Do a military coup? And if he had, David, you might have had something else to say! Whether it was India instigated or US or the UK, it does not matter. If the political parties did not want the monarchy, and since they were the people's voice, they did away with the institution and Katwal obeyed, like a true democrat. Maybe he did not like it, but hey, he did not go against it and acted like a true "democratic" soldier (if I may). Katwal nor for that any army or armed forces chief around the world can stop agreements being cooked up by national political parties helped by foreign hands. There is some truth to Katwal's points. It may actually not be total people's revolution or democracy but democracy forced by guns (The Maoists) on the most democratic parties in Nepal, i.e. the NC and the UML (the NC with the late Koirala wanting to be a President or a PM or anything as long as he held power and had his daughter trudging along with rest of the "democrats" looking in awe and the UML (who were always true republicans at heart, and if they had the chance, would have done exactly what the Maoists did). Koirala's "Grand Design" finally came into play. Katwal is not an accomplice David, he merely gave in to people's verdict. He would have been the king's accomplice against democracy if he had gone against the 12 point agreement cooked up in Delhi by our "nationalist democrats." The monarchy's gone, so be it. But it was removed by "hoodlum politics" rather than on a national verdict. They knew it they gone to the people, they would have lost. And look at the monarch (the ex now), he went away peacefully. Compare that with almost 13,000 lives lost and 6 years of "democracy" since 2006 which has been filled with moves and counter-moves and is pathological in nature with the YCL and other criminals making our everyday lives miserable. Yet, we still give them the benefit of transition. And yet we are "democratic."

Posted on - 2012-01-23 by Chintit Nepali
Broadly thinking 2005/06 step,indeed,could take as a counter revolution against reinstated of multi-party democracy through people's movement in 2046 B.S.It's disappointing to note that NC and other political parties who believed in parliamentary democracy found failed to understand the real objective behind said step and unconsciously joind in that counter revolution and for what they have been gradually paying price.Completely sidelining the institution of monarchy not necessarily contribute democracy and nationality but NC,specially late G.P.K,failed to understanding the unexpected adverse result of the same.In order to safeguard separate identity of nation and strengthening true democratic development it's a kind of necessity to have counter-step to correct the very dangerous path that is ongoing due to suicidal decision of 2005/06 movement.